5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Baku.
6.  On 1 December 1998 the applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of an order of the Baku City Executive Authority of 20 November 1998.
7.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat had been occupied since 1 January 1998 by M. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Shusha, a region under the occupation of the Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
8.  According to the applicant, despite numerous demands, M. refused to vacate the flat, pointing out that he was an IDP and had no other place to live.
9.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of M. and his family from the flat.
10.  On 21 July 2003 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered that M. and his family be evicted from the flat. The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher of 1 December 1998 and therefore that the flat was being unlawfully occupied by M. and his family.
11.  No appeals were lodged against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law, it became enforceable within one month of its delivery. However, M. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and, despite the applicant’s complaints to various authorities, it was not enforced.
12.  On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicant and a group of other persons who were in the same situation lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court complaining that the Yasamal District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (“the Department of Enforcement Officers”) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments.
13.  On 27 December 2006 the Yasamal District Court dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed against this judgment. On 2 May 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and delivered a new judgment on the merits in the applicant’s favour. The Court of Appeal held that the Department of Enforcement Officers’ inaction had been unlawful and that the judgment of 21 July 2003 should be enforced.
14.  On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant lodged an action against different authorities, seeking compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 July 2003. On 19 December 2008 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. On 3 March 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 3 July 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
15.  It appears from the case file that, after the lodging of the present application with the Court, M. lodged a request with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgment of 21 July 2003. He alleged that, as he was an IDP, he had no other place to live but the flat in question.
16.  On 2 July 2008 the Yasamal District Court granted M.’s request and ordered the postponement of the execution of the judgment of 21 July 2003 until M. could move to one of the houses recently constructed for temporary settlement of IDPs. The court relied on the Presidential Order of 1 July 2004 on Approval of the State Programme for Improvement of Living Conditions and Increase of Employment of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (“the Presidential Order of 1 July 2004”), according to which the relevant State organs were instructed that until the return of the IDPs to their native lands or until their temporary settlement in new houses, IDPs should not be evicted from public apartments, flats, land and other premises, regardless of ownership, they had settled in between 1992 and 1998. Following a series of appeals by the applicant, on 15 March 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. It appears from the case file that on 12 May 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court and that the proceedings before the latter court are still pending.